• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pastor Who Works for TN Police Dept. Says Gays Should Be Executed By Police

ecofarm said:
That's nazi apologism. I don't believe you're gay.
Click to expand...
You Have to be kidding!. Check my page. I am not nearly as afraid of this dingbat redneck Nazi I can ignore, or prove foolish or laugh at, as I am of corporations playing moral policemen over our everyday lives. I like a company that is pretty firm about not taking action because I get high, or sleep around, if I got drunk and streaked nude around a bar, or if I stood in a pro life march waving a sign at pregnant women, or if I go to klansmen rallies or gay barsevery third Saturday.. Keep the workplace at the workplace and the drama out the workplace, and I am all good.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
You Have to be kidding!. Check my page. I am not nearly as afraid of this dingbat redneck Nazi I can ignore, as I am of corporations playing moral policemen over our everyday lives.
Click to expand...

Firing nazis is not moral policeman. It's maintaining a non hostile work environment. An employer is duty bound to their employees to fire a nazi.

I will always make sure nazis are fired. Whether at my job or somewhere else.
 
ecofarm said:
Firing nazis is not moral policeman. It's maintaining a non hostile work environment. An employer is duty bound to their employees to fire a nazi.

I will always make sure nazis are fired. Whether at my job or somewhere else.
Click to expand...
NO. His existence is not hostile to my work environment. His advocacy of his wacko ideas outside of the workplace, is not hostile to my work environment at work. I am an American. I grew knowing that I would be exposed to the most repugnant ideas just by living in this country. I knew from my youth that I could not try to contain or control those ideas without endangering my own access to other unpopular ideas. So I put my big boy pants on and go to work each day under the possibility that I will work with people who hold repugnant ideas. If they are talking about work, and their girlfriend, and what kind of deodorant they like we will get along fine. If they begin to talk about their ideas, I can either complain to the boss about the hostile work environment, or tell them to shut up, or debate them or laugh at them or ignore them. If they won't shut up even after I complain, then they are creating a hostile work environment. they can spit their venom all they want after they clock out. I get in a different car, and go elsewhere.
 
btthegreat said:
NO. His existence is not hostile to my work environment.
Click to expand...

It is for everyone. I don't care what fantasy you entertain.

All nazis must be fired. To fail to do so is ethically repugnant.
 
ecofarm said:
It is for everyone. I don't care what fantasy you entertain.

All nazis must be fired. To fail to do so is ethically repugnant.
Click to expand...
Nope. You just like to empower corporations to be our morality and political police, doing the same dirty work that our govt's would do, if they were allowed to silence unpopular political parties and political ideas. It's really about cowardice, nothing else.
 
ecofarm said:
Let's see your citation for privately owned or any business being responsible to uphold free speech.

You think this forum is obligated to uphold free speech?
Click to expand...

Why would I need to cite such a thing? I’ve never claimed business is responsible to uphold free speech.

Maybe try reading slower...
 
TrueScotsman said:
There are two words being used, hyperecho (to be exalted [state]) and exousia. Here are some lexicons which further indicate the appropriate application of this word to civil governing authorities, and it is the only usage of this term appropriate for the context.

37.38 ἐξουσίαd, ας f: one who has the authority to rule or govern—‘an authority, ruler.’ ὅταν δὲ εἰσφέρωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐπὶ … τὰς ἐξουσίας, μὴ μεριμνήσητε ‘when they bring you (to be tried) before … the authorities, do not be worried’ Lk 12:11.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains

⑤ bearer of ruling authority
ⓐ human authorities, officials, government (Dionys. Hal. 8, 44; 11, 32; POxy 261, 15) Lk 12:11 (here and elsewh. in NT w. ἀρχή, as also in Pla.); Ro 13:1, 2, 3 (with 13:1b cp. the express. ‘ancient saying’ [s. Hes., Theogony 96 ἐκ δὲ Διὸς βασιλῆες. On this HFränkel, Dichtung u. Philos. des frühen Griechentums ’62, 111 n. 6] in Artem. 2, 36 p. 135, 24; 2, 69 p. 161, 17 τὸ κρατοῦν δύναμιν ἔχει θεοῦ=the ruling power has its authority from God; Wsd 6:3; Jos., Bell. 2, 140 οὐ δίχα θεοῦ περιγενέσθαι τινὶ τὸ ἄρχειν … ἐξουσίαν); Tit 3:1. For the view that the ἐ. of Ro 13 are spirit powers, as b below, s. OCullmann, Christ and Time (tr. Filson) ’50, 191–210.—On the subj. in gener. s. LGaugusch, D. Staatslehre d. Ap. Pls nach Ro 13: ThGl 5, ’34, 529–50; JUitman, Onder Eig. Vaandel 15, ’40, 102–21; HvCampenhausen, ABertholet Festschr. ’50, 97–113; OCullmann, Zur neuesten Diskussion über die ἐξουσίαι in Rö 13:1: TZ 10, ’54, 321–36, D. Staat im NT ’612 (Eng. tr.: The State in the NT ’56, 93–114); against him AStrobel, ZNW 47, ’56, 67–93.—GCaird, Princip. and Powers ’56; RMorgenthaler TZ 12, ’56, 289–304; CMorrison, The Powers That Be ’60; EBarnikol, Rö 13. Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung der absoluten Obrigkeitsbejahung v. Rö 13:1–7 ’61, 65–133; HSchlier, Principalities and Powers in the NT ’61 (Eng. tr.); MBorg, NTS 19, ’72/73, 205–18. οἱ ἐπʼ ἐξουσίαν ἀχθέντες those who are brought before the authorities Hs 9, 28, 4.
ⓑ of transcendent rulers and functionaries: powers of the spirit world (TestLevi 3:8; TestSol 20:15 B), sg. (w. ἀρχή and δύναμις) 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; Col 2:10. Pl. (w. ἀρχαί as Just., D. 41, 1; cp. Orig., C. Cels. 4, 29, 22) Eph 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:15; (w. ἄγγελοι, δυνάμεις) 1 Pt 3:22. Cp. the v.l. for ἄρχειν Papias (4).


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 353). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Click to expand...

Exousia means liberty
Hyperecho means higher.

After reading Socrates there is no way any reasonable person could walk away believing either word means civil government.

Just governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. In the context of Rom 13:1 the choice to consent to the government is the higher power. Not even the choice. But the individual liberty to make the choice.
 
btthegreat said:
You Have to be kidding!. Check my page. I am not nearly as afraid of this dingbat redneck Nazi I can ignore, or prove foolish or laugh at, as I am of corporations playing moral policemen over our everyday lives. I like a company that is pretty firm about not taking action because I get high, or sleep around, if I got drunk and streaked nude around a bar, or if I stood in a pro life march waving a sign at pregnant women, or if I go to klansmen rallies or gay barsevery third Saturday.. Keep the workplace at the workplace and the drama out the workplace, and I am all good.
Click to expand...

Very observant, and thank you for some great posts.
 
Aberration said:
You are quoting Jesus in Leviticus?
Click to expand...

Nope.

The OT says gays should be killed. Jesus says the OT laws still apply. Hence, according to Jesus, gays should be killed.
 
TrueScotsman said:
Read the Bible.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

The secular law to the Christian, is god's law, which should punish the evil doer. Homosexuality is evil in the Bible.

I am not a Christian, I am pointing these out to demonstrate that they are just being consistent with their religion.
Click to expand...

I really don't care what this man's religion tells him about what to do with gay people. He can have any religious beliefs he wants. However, he can't advocate the execution of innocent citizens and keep his job as a law enforcement officer.
 
Most companies of any size these days have a "employee social media policy" which makes it possible to dismiss or otherwise discipline an employee who expresses ideas that can reflect poorly on the company. This is completely reasonable and in no way violates one's 1st amendment rights.

This pastor/detective was properly removed because his words reflected poorly on the department that is charged with protecting all citizens.
 
TrueScotsman said:
ISIS thinking? Tell that to Paul.

Romans 13:1-6
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Click to expand...

This country is not a Christina theocracy and quoting from a christian book doesn't make it so, there are many who are not Christians including myself , who happens to be Jewish, should we make laws for no pork?
 
TrueScotsman said:
Read the Bible.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

The secular law to the Christian, is god's law, which should punish the evil doer. Homosexuality is evil in the Bible.

I am not a Christian, I am pointing these out to demonstrate that they are just being consistent with their religion.
Click to expand...
You're not a Christian, so cherry picking stuff you found off a website list showing "BIBLE EBIL! CHRASTIANS HATE GAAAYS!" isn't helping your cause.
 
btthegreat said:
I don't care how you define 'overtly bigoted', I do care that your 'definition' is not interesting to employers at all. they get to decide what offends their corporate sense of values and fire anyone who's behavior might embarrass them. That means my walk in the gay pride parade, can get my ass fired. My Sanders for President lawn sign can threaten my mortgage payments.

Nope. Let the Neo Nazi march away and scream insults at gays or minorities. I will still work by his side next Monday, thanks. I want him to feel safe from economic reprisals, so I can protest without my family being at risk. I don't want to work in a place that fires him for his off the clock views.
Click to expand...

IMO there is a fundamental and important difference between, 1) gay sex is immoral, we must condemn it and not partake in it, versus 2) gays are immoral and the state (and I'm an agent of the state trusted to enforce its laws at the end of the gun the state allows me to carry) should arrest and summarily execute all gays.

It's the difference between "Allah is great" and "death to the infidels!!!!" AND giving that latter person a gun and sending him out into the community to enforce the law.

You marching in a gay pride parade doesn't come with it the exhortation to murder/execute straight people, or anti-gay people, or Christians like the moron on the OP. Your Bernie Sanders sign carries with it no push to round up Trump supporters into concentration camps and hold mass executions of them for being disloyal to the cause. If it did, then perhaps your employer would be justified in firing you.
 
Elvira said:
Do you really think Jesus would condone such a thing?
Click to expand...

So much for Jesus message of tolerance, forgiveness, and charity. Bunch of hypocrites.
 
TrueScotsman said:
Read the Bible.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

The secular law to the Christian, is god's law, which should punish the evil doer. Homosexuality is evil in the Bible.

I am not a Christian, I am pointing these out to demonstrate that they are just being consistent with their religion.
Click to expand...

is any of that new testament?
 
Hypothetical said:
is any of that new testament?
Click to expand...
This text is from the New Testament, the Old Testament had the Mosaic Law where they just did it all themselves. And the Christians from very early on after this text condemned homosexuality, focusing primarily at first at the predominate form of it in the Roman Empire, pederasty. It is clear though that from the Proto-Orthodox view onwards, there was a condemnation of homosexuality. In Romans 1, it is considered as a dark exchange, a kind of metaphor of how all men had given themselves over to idols, unnatural things in exchange for god.
 
Renae said:
You're not a Christian, so cherry picking stuff you found off a website list showing "BIBLE EBIL! CHRASTIANS HATE GAAAYS!" isn't helping your cause.
Click to expand...
Would you like me to go on? I've noted that the Bible says homosexuality should be punished by death, that's consistent in the OT and NT, and that civil authorities are the ministers of god to exact god's revenge in this life against the evildoer.

I was a Christian for a long time, know all of its variants. You don't have have a refutation it seem though, so you attack the man, typical.
 
Marxistleninist said:
This country is not a Christina theocracy and quoting from a christian book doesn't make it so, there are many who are not Christians including myself , who happens to be Jewish, should we make laws for no pork?
Click to expand...
They don't apply this text just to theocratic authorities, they think civil authorities represent god's justice in a sort of way. And clearly they think homosexuality is evil, and Paul says that god's righteous decree is that those who do it should die.

Not a Christian, just showing you what the root cause of this problem is. The text itself.
 
bearpoker said:
I really don't care what this man's religion tells him about what to do with gay people. He can have any religious beliefs he wants. However, he can't advocate the execution of innocent citizens and keep his job as a law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...
He doesn't think they're innocent, and he likely doesn't regard his religious beliefs as some fragmented thing that can be tossed aside here and there when needed. This I think is weird first amendment territory, thanks to the contents of the Bible.
 
TrueScotsman said:
Would you like me to go on? I've noted that the Bible says homosexuality should be punished by death, that's consistent in the OT and NT, and that civil authorities are the ministers of god to exact god's revenge in this life against the evildoer.

I was a Christian for a long time, know all of its variants. You don't have have a refutation it seem though, so you attack the man, typical.
Click to expand...

Yes, Leviticus, old testament. Gasp, we don't follow the old testament laws. The New Testament says it's a sin, many things are listed as sins.

I eat seafood, and pork, the old testament says not too.. GASP I'm EVIL!!!
 
It just proves that in 2019 America, gays are still the ONLY group that can be threatened like that in public.


If he had said that about any gender or ethnicity or religion, he would have had to go into hiding.


And his police bosses would have immediately begged the target group for forgiveness.
 
Aberration said:
Exousia means liberty.
Click to expand...
I literally provided you with two robust lexicon definitions to support the usage. Exousia like many words, has multiple meanings depending on the context. If one reads Romans 13 with exousia translated as liberty, the text means absolutely nothing. Almost none of the Biblical scholars use Socrates by the way, as a means of trying to understand the meaning of words used in Koine Greek by Paul, for instance.

After reading Socrates there is no way any reasonable person could walk away believing either word means civil government.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because Paul used the word in a different way than Socrates did, based upon the context. Every single Bible translation indicates the meaning I have provided, that it is speaking of a higher civil authority.

Just governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.
Click to expand...
Wow, way to insert modern Democratic notions into ancient history.

In the context of Rom 13:1 the choice to consent to the government is the higher power. Not even the choice. But the individual liberty to make the choice.
Click to expand...
What on earth?

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1

This is generally how all translators render the text. Which means that all believers should be subject to governing authorities, because their authority has been established by god.

Let's translate this as liberty now.

Let everyone be subject to the higher liberties, for there is no liberty except that which God has established. The liberties that exist have been established by God.

This makes not only this verse no longer make any sense, but the rest of the passage. Where it talks about paying taxes to civil authorities, and how civil liberties are ministers of god who bear his wrath justly as his instrument.

80 out of the 102 uses of the word exousia in the New Testament have the word translated as authority. It is also used in the predominately in the Septuagint as power and authority, or a reference to a king or ruler.
 
TrueScotsman said:
He doesn't think they're innocent, and he likely doesn't regard his religious beliefs as some fragmented thing that can be tossed aside here and there when needed. This I think is weird first amendment territory, thanks to the contents of the Bible.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then he has no business as an armed agent of the state. That's kind of the point. We simply are not a theocracy.

And it's not all that troubling, to me, with regard to the 1A. He shouldn't be jailed for expressing the view, "DEATH TO GAYS!!!!" although that is pushing a line way over into the dark gray zone, similar to "DEATH TO THE INFIDELS" which if you were head of a mosque would have the place swarming with FBI the next week and for the indefinite future. But that doesn't entitle him, confer on him a 'right', to carry a gun and badge and be tasked with enforcing the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom